Customers of Vodafone and TelstraClear already know that seven o'clock at night is the worst time of day to surf the net and TrueNet figures confirm this.

Both fixed line operators suffer far more network congestion at peak times than their competitors, something TrueNet managing director John Butt suggests this is a significant congestion issue.

"We look at the variation between peak speed and the low point and with Vodafone the drop was most significant at 7pm - they fall to 75% of peak speeds," says Butt.

TelstraClear's service (both on DSL and cable) also falls short at peak time - down to roughly 85% of peak speeds.

"Speed variations by time-of-day are often the consequence of design rules and growth rates. If design limits are too tight or unexpected growth places too much traffic into the capacity available, congestion occurs and speeds reduce," says Butt.

Because time-of-day performance can vary wildly from month to month, TrueNet monitors which ISPs manage this issue the most reliably.

Taken over a four month period the outcome is clear - customers' service can be adversely affected at peak times. This could pose challenges for TelstraClear's proposed "unlimited broadband”, says TUANZ chief executive Paul Brislen.

"It’s important that telcos work out how to give us far more data than we currently get, so from that point of view TelstraClear’s trial run of unlimited broadband is very good news. However we also need to make sure that current customers aren’t impacted by overloading," says Brislen.

In July, TrueNet tested a similar experiment by Snap which found service levels coped well all weekend without noticeable impact.

Hmm I wonder how this looks also against the peek speeds as this graph if I read it correctly depicts the difference between peak and low. so a bad performing network who maintains their poor speed in peak times looks better even though they are poor to start with?

Mu guess is that Telecom sheds customers to providers each time providers do a promotion which means that those left on Telecom get a better service (which clearly they do from the graphs) and at the same time the providers pick up more customers and drown their capacity.

Telecom might be paying $50 because they can buy at a better rate because of volume (and SXC have even told us this when they said that we get the same prices that the .au market gets).

So, Telecom can afford to have 3mbits of head room for every 1mbit that Snap can afford.

If everyone was paying $100/mbit then the playing field is more level.

Telecom also attract a different profile of customer than the likes of the AYCE Slingshot or the lower cost Vodafone. If we could move some of the profile to SS and VF from T then that would also balance things alot better.

Telecom of course can also buy more gear at a better price so can have more network headroom in their core.

50% of customers means say 20 Cisco ABC1110 Core routers at the the 20 up buy price which is 15% lower than the 1 up buy price. So they pay $1 per user per year for core.

Snap (again random) don't even need a ABC1110 core... they get the A10 core and then only 1. So they paid $5 per user per year for core.

What we need is a better balance so that everyone is paying $3 for core.

Does that sort of explain my thinking at all? I wrote a whole thread on these sorts of issues. :)

Mu guess is that Telecom sheds customers to providers each time providers do a promotion which means that those left on Telecom get a better service (which clearly they do from the graphs) and at the same time the providers pick up more customers and drown their capacity.

Telecom might be paying $50 because they can buy at a better rate because of volume (and SXC have even told us this when they said that we get the same prices that the .au market gets).

So, Telecom can afford to have 3mbits of head room for every 1mbit that Snap can afford.

If everyone was paying $100/mbit then the playing field is more level.

Telecom also attract a different profile of customer than the likes of the AYCE Slingshot or the lower cost Vodafone. If we could move some of the profile to SS and VF from T then that would also balance things alot better.

Telecom of course can also buy more gear at a better price so can have more network headroom in their core.

50% of customers means say 20 Cisco ABC1110 Core routers at the the 20 up buy price which is 15% lower than the 1 up buy price. So they pay $1 per user per year for core.

Snap (again random) don't even need a ABC1110 core... they get the A10 core and then only 1. So they paid $5 per user per year for core.

What we need is a better balance so that everyone is paying $3 for core.

Does that sort of explain my thinking at all? I wrote a whole thread on these sorts of issues. :)

freitasm: Don, you want to control the market in an un-natural way. People move where they move because of many factors: a promotion, better service, moving home, going to university, getting married.

We can understand where things flow to, but it's hard to manage those things.

As a customer it's not hard to manage at all. I understand the balance problem so I choose to put my business with as many smaller providers as I can in the interests of helping to level the playing field.

There is nothing un-natural about that at all.

On Saturday you got 1 vote.

I could also work for Telecom, but I choose to work outside of the big providers to forge more traction in a balanced market.

I agree with your reasons for people moving.

The question I was addressing with my questions was to understand the data that John presented and what drives it.